At 7/31/2016 5:26:34 AM, Torton wrote:What's your thoughts on increasing technological unemployment (i.e., automation of jobs), and the argument that a basic income may be necessary because of it?

It's largely a myth. I will never support a basic income, as I despise redistribution, but the idea that we somehow are having "less" employment in the long run due to technological developments is mythical at best. The assembly line, sewing machines, etc. have all been technological developments which have reduced labor in the short term, but have increased it in the long term as it led to redistribution.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

At 7/31/2016 5:26:34 AM, Torton wrote:What's your thoughts on increasing technological unemployment (i.e., automation of jobs), and the argument that a basic income may be necessary because of it?

It's largely a myth. I will never support a basic income, as I despise redistribution, but the idea that we somehow are having "less" employment in the long run due to technological developments is mythical at best. The assembly line, sewing machines, etc. have all been technological developments which have reduced labor in the short term, but have increased it in the long term as it led to redistribution.

It's actually not a myth. Your examples provided "assembly line" and "sewing machines" are not a proper comparison here. Let's review both examples, their impacts on their unique markets, and finish both by adding an extra variable to define proper comparison.

1) The invention of the Ford Production Line (assembly line) increased efficiency and competence of every worker, decreased number of errors committed, increased speed of product build, increased daily output, and in turn lowered production costs which significantly lowered cost of finished product for the consumer. The increased availability of product in conjunction with significantly lower purchase price meant higher demand; higher demand mandates increased production to increase supply. Increased product requirements results in an increase in a company's labor requirements which means an increase in employment. This was the actual result back in 1911 with the invention of the Ford Production Line.

Now, in 1962, the first industrial robot was installed and went live within the General Motors automotive factory in New Jersey; this robot performed fully automated spot welding and die casting extractions. As the technology was proven, more industrial robots were designed and implemented. Although these robots increased production rates and decreased cost to consumers, increasing demand; the growth of automation within the automotive manufacturing field meant less workers were required.

Say six employees each shift are required to install the four doors on each vehicle manufactured. Two automated robots are implemented, one for each side of the car; those six workers are no longer required for door installation and are subsequently terminated due to position being dissolved. As robotic integration increases, four stations totaling 24 employees per shift are downsized to one employee who only provides oversight of the robots. Technological growth and integration is the cause of labor requirement decreases, not the assembly line.

2) Let's hit this in much shorter fashion. People initially hand sewn everything. Low supply, high manufacturing times and costs. The invention of the sewing machine increased production speed, decreased cost to consumer, increased demand, and increased labor requirements. This is the same as the Ford Production Line.

The invention of the automated, robotic sewing machines, just as robotics in the automotive factories, decreased labor requirements.

Do not confuse innovation and efficiency with technological, automation advances.

At 7/31/2016 5:26:34 AM, Torton wrote:What's your thoughts on increasing technological unemployment (i.e., automation of jobs), and the argument that a basic income may be necessary because of it?

It's largely a myth. I will never support a basic income, as I despise redistribution, but the idea that we somehow are having "less" employment in the long run due to technological developments is mythical at best. The assembly line, sewing machines, etc. have all been technological developments which have reduced labor in the short term, but have increased it in the long term as it led to redistribution.

It's actually not a myth. Your examples provided "assembly line" and "sewing machines" are not a proper comparison here. Let's review both examples, their impacts on their unique markets, and finish both by adding an extra variable to define proper comparison.

1) The invention of the Ford Production Line (assembly line) increased efficiency and competence of every worker, decreased number of errors committed, increased speed of product build, increased daily output, and in turn lowered production costs which significantly lowered cost of finished product for the consumer. The increased availability of product in conjunction with significantly lower purchase price meant higher demand; higher demand mandates increased production to increase supply. Increased product requirements results in an increase in a company's labor requirements which means an increase in employment. This was the actual result back in 1911 with the invention of the Ford Production Line.

Now, in 1962, the first industrial robot was installed and went live within the General Motors automotive factory in New Jersey; this robot performed fully automated spot welding and die casting extractions. As the technology was proven, more industrial robots were designed and implemented. Although these robots increased production rates and decreased cost to consumers, increasing demand; the growth of automation within the automotive manufacturing field meant less workers were required.

Say six employees each shift are required to install the four doors on each vehicle manufactured. Two automated robots are implemented, one for each side of the car; those six workers are no longer required for door installation and are subsequently terminated due to position being dissolved. As robotic integration increases, four stations totaling 24 employees per shift are downsized to one employee who only provides oversight of the robots. Technological growth and integration is the cause of labor requirement decreases, not the assembly line.

2) Let's hit this in much shorter fashion. People initially hand sewn everything. Low supply, high manufacturing times and costs. The invention of the sewing machine increased production speed, decreased cost to consumer, increased demand, and increased labor requirements. This is the same as the Ford Production Line.

The invention of the automated, robotic sewing machines, just as robotics in the automotive factories, decreased labor requirements.

Do not confuse innovation and efficiency with technological, automation advances.

You're correct. That was my mistake.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

At 7/31/2016 5:16:23 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:Tej did one, and I liked the idea, so I'm going to do it too. Ask me anything about politics/economics/etc.

Are you the last person remaining who thinks "Trickle-down" economics works?

Probably not.

When arguing for the biggest loser of economic theory, what fantasy examples of success do you point to?

I can already tell you don't understand economics fully when you use the term "trickle-down". It's more of a political term than an economic one.

To answer your question, when arguing for the biggest loser of economic history, which is state intervention, I'll point to the vast success of the American industrial sector in the quasi-free market we had in the 1800s and the productivity increases when we were able to win the game of comparative advantage.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.